My oh my. In aphotographyforum, so many verbal arguments submitted as evidence for jpg vs. raw and so little photographic evidence submitted. Of the 80 posts proceeding this post, only three people have submitted photographic evidence: Nick (Gardenersassistant) with his multiple jpg vs. raw comparisons, Carl English, and myself. So many words, sentences, and paragraphs rather than photographs. In aphotographyforum?! There is even submitted a recorded music mp3 vs flac analogy as evidence for jpg vs raw. In aphotographyforum?!

I have asked Gardnersassistant a question about his jpg vs. raw comparisons. When he kindly responds, I will attempt to make my summation of the photographic evidence.

In recent years I have heard (too) many observations about proponents of raw -- that they have a tendency to elitism, supremicism, or a "holier than thou" attitude and also that they have a tendency to combativeness. I have no objection to elitism -- I have and can easily peacefully coexist with elitists. It is elitists' tendency to combativeness to which I object, especially when their combativeness is unsolicited and aimed at me. To be quite candid, I grow weary of combative raw proponents treating me as a religious infidel.

It is long past due time for proponents of raw to drop their verbal arguments and submit photographic evidence. The same should also be said for proponents of jpg. I am willing to analyze and believe the photographic evidence submitted. Also, I am prepared to conclude that, if insufficient photographic evidence is submitted, then there is insufficient merit to that position; and I shall act accordingly.

If we stick to submitting and analyzing photographic evidence, I believe that the results will be valuable to photographers. I intend to participate further in submitting photographic evidence.

Attention combative raw proponents: Respond to this post with photographic evidence only or be gone.